FIG. 19 is a diagram of a configuration of a server system 10 as a conventional information processing apparatus. As illustrated in FIG. 19, the server system includes a plurality of server units 12a to 12d, on each of which an OS (Operating System) runs, and a managing unit 11 that monitors and controls the server units 12a to 12d. 
The managing unit 11, such as a service processor (SVP), as a system managing device displays information about each of the server units 12a to 12d in the HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) format in response to a request from a user 1. System management software 13 is installed on the server unit 12a (also on the server units 12b to 12d). The system management software 13 acquires information inside the server unit 12a and controls power supply to hardware (driver) 15.
When, for example, acquiring information from an OS 14, the system management software 13 sends the acquired information in response to a request from the managing unit 11 or re-acquires new information as needed. When the user 1 controls hardware on the server units 12a to 12d, the user 1 issues a request directly to the system management software 13, and the system management software 13 controls the power supply to the hardware 15 via the OS 14.
The system management software 13 stores a series of processes in a log file in a storage device 16 that is a memory. When abnormality occurs, it is possible to identify a cause of the abnormality by analyzing the log file. The log file contains contents of processes, information on process execution time, and the like.
Meanwhile, in the server system illustrated in FIG. 19, information acquisition performed by the system management software 13 may be influenced by a hardware control process. FIG. 20 is a diagram explaining how the information acquisition is influenced by hardware control.
In an example illustrated in FIG. 20, it is explained that the user 1 performs power-OFF operation and screen display operation. When the user 1 performs the power-OFF operation (Step S10), the system management software 13 sends a power-OFF request to the OS 14 (Step S11).
The OS 14 checks presence of a device as a hardware resource of each server unit, and when a device to be a process object is present, starts a process (Step S12). The hardware 15 starts power-OFF (Step S13), completes the power-OFF (Step S14), and sends a notice of completion of the power-OFF to the OS 14 (Step S15).
When acquiring the notice of completion of the power-OFF, the OS 14 records, in a log file, information indicating that the device is deleted, and sends the notice of completion of the power-OFF to the system management software 13 (Step S16). When acquiring the notice of completion of the power-OFF, the system management software 13 sends the notice of completion of the power-OFF (Step S17), and the user 1 receives a notice of process completion (Step S18).
Meanwhile, if the user 1 performs the screen display operation at approximately the same time as the power-OFF operation (Step S20), the managing unit 11 sends an information acquisition request to the system management software 13 (Step S21), and the system management software 13 sends the information acquisition request to the OS 14 (Step S22).
When the OS 14 receives the information acquisition request from the system management software 13, the power of the hardware 15 is already OFF. However, because the OS 14 has not yet acquired the notice of completion of the power-OFF from the hardware 15, the OS 14 starts an information acquisition process (Step S23). Therefore, in this case, order of processes is disturbed.
In this case, because the power of the hardware 15 is OFF, the information acquisition ends in failure (Step S24), and the OS 14 sends a notice of a failure indicating that the information acquisition has ended in failure to the system management software 13 (Step S25). The system management software 13 returns an error to the managing unit 11 (Step S26), the managing unit 11 displays a screen indicating that the information acquisition has ended in failure (Step S27), and the user 1 confirms the display (Step S28).
When a failure that is dependent on timing of processes occurs as explained above with reference to FIG. 20, a test (hereinafter, a failure reproduction test) is performed to reproduce a process with which a failure has occurred and the failure that has occurred due to execution timing of the process or the like, in order to identify a cause of the failure. In the reproduction test, a failure reproducing apparatus is caused to perform user's operation illustrated in FIG. 19, and the failure reproducing apparatus repeatedly executes various processes on the server system 10 by changing process timing or contents of processes in order to realize an environment in which the failure has occurred as well as to identify a process with which the failure has occurred and timing of the process. However, it is difficult for the failure reproducing apparatus to adjust timing of a process to be executed in the server unit to desired timing.
For example, an example will be explained in which, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the failure reproducing apparatus sends an information acquisition request and a hardware control process request to the server system and reproduces timing of a process with which a failure occurs. The information acquisition request output from the failure reproducing apparatus to the server system 10 is sent to the system management software 13 via the managing unit 11 while the hardware control is sent to the system management software 13.
Therefore, timing at which the system management software 13 starts processes is influenced by a process delay caused by the managing unit 11. Consequently, even when the failure reproducing apparatus simultaneously performs the information acquisition request and the hardware control, the system management software 13 does not perform the processes for the information acquisition request and the hardware control precisely at the same time. Furthermore, even when each process is executed at a regular interval, the interval of each of the processes that run asynchronously with each other may be gradually disturbed because of interrupt processing, process priority order, or an influence of loads on the OS 14.
Therefore, the failure reproducing apparatus randomly changes execution timing of the information acquisition request and execution timing of the hardware control and determines whether or not an error occurs, in order to identify process timing by which an error is caused. FIG. 21A and FIG. 21B are diagrams explaining timing of processes in a conventional failure reproduction test. As illustrated in FIG. 21A and FIG. 21B, the failure reproducing apparatus employs a method (see FIG. 21A) in which an error is reproduced by repeating processes while the interval between the processes is maintained constant or another method (see FIG. 21B) in which an error is reproduced by repeating processes while the interval between the processes is randomly changed.
As another conventional technology for executing the failure reproducing test, a technology is known in which a history of user operation on an electronic computer system is recorded and the same processes as those of the recorded history of operation is executed to perform the failure reproduction test in order to analyze a cause of a failure. In this conventional technology, it is attempted to reproduce a failure by changing operating conditions in a plurality of ways, for example, by changing environmental information on an information processing apparatus as a tested apparatus or performing a test by changing combinations of operating applications.
Still another technology is known in which a relative relationship between execution start time of a plurality of processes at the time of occurrence of a failure is obtained on the basis of log information recorded in an information processing apparatus being a tested apparatus, and a reproduction test is executed by changing the start time.    Patent Document 1: Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 8-50555    Patent Document 2: Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 6-139093
However, in the above-mentioned conventional technologies, when process timing by which an error is caused is to be identified, the failure reproducing apparatus randomly executes processes at various timing, so that efficiency is reduced, which is a problem.
Furthermore, in the technology in which a history of user operation is recorded and processes are executed in accordance with the recorded history of operation to perform a reproduction test for analyzing a cause of a failure, an operational delay caused by the managing unit 11 as illustrated in FIG. 19 is not taken into account. Therefore, when a path that may cause the operational delay like the managing unit 11 is present, a time lag, i.e., a delay time, occurs in the operation. Therefore, the process timing recorded in the history of operation is not always the same as process timing by which an error is caused. Consequently, it is impossible to reproduce an error unless processes are repeatedly executed in the same environment.
It may be possible to calculate process timing at which a failure has occurred and execute a failure reproduction test intensively at the calculated timing. However, it is preferably to analyze a timing pattern by which a problem occurs, on the basis of log information, and it is also necessary to incorporate the analysis result into the failure reproducing apparatus; therefore, extra time is needed.